Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
C++ does not have the keyword super that a subclass can use in Java to invoke the superclass version of a method that it wants to override. Instead, the name of the parent or base class is used followed by the scope resolution operator. For example, the following code presents two classes, the base class Rectangle, and the derived class Box.
For example, to have a derived class with an overloaded function taking a double or an int, using the function taking an int from the base class, in C++, one would write: class B { public : void F ( int i ); }; class D : public B { public : using B :: F ; void F ( double d ); };
The g++ compiler implements the multiple inheritance of the classes B1 and B2 in class D using two virtual method tables, one for each base class. (There are other ways to implement multiple inheritance, but this is the most common.) This leads to the necessity for "pointer fixups", also called thunks, when casting. Consider the following C++ code:
A notable language in which this is a fairly common paradigm is C++. C# supports return type covariance as of version 9.0. [1] Covariant return types have been (partially) allowed in the Java language since the release of JDK5.0, [2] so the following example wouldn't compile on a previous release:
In figure C above, when an argument larger than 11 bytes is supplied on the command line foo() overwrites local stack data, the saved frame pointer, and most importantly, the return address. When foo() returns, it pops the return address off the stack and jumps to that address (i.e. starts executing instructions from that address).
Refactoring is usually motivated by noticing a code smell. [2] For example, the method at hand may be very long, or it may be a near duplicate of another nearby method. Once recognized, such problems can be addressed by refactoring the source code, or transforming it into a new form that behaves the same as before but that no longer "smells".
32-bit compilers emit, respectively: _f _g@4 @h@4 In the stdcall and fastcall mangling schemes, the function is encoded as _name@X and @name@X respectively, where X is the number of bytes, in decimal, of the argument(s) in the parameter list (including those passed in registers, for fastcall).
For example, a one-instruction set computer (OISC) machine that uses only the subtract-and-branch-if-negative "instruction" cannot do an indirect copy (something like the equivalent of "*a = **b" in the C language) without using self-modifying code. Booting. Early microcomputers often used self-modifying code in their bootloaders.